[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH(Experimental) 2/4] Revert changes to workqueue.c
    On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 06:33:21PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > I take my words back. It is not "ugly" any longer because with this change
    > we don't do kthread_stop()->wakeup_process() while cwq->thread may sleep in
    > work->func(). Still I don't see (ok, I am biased and probably wrong, please
    > correct me) why kthread_stop+wait_to_die is better than cwq_should_stop(),
    > see below.

    I just like using existing code (kthread_stop) as much as possible and not add
    new code (->should_stop). Also the 'while (cwq->thread != NULL)' loop in
    cleanup_workqueue_thread is not neat IMHO, compared to kthread_stop+wait_to_die.

    Pls compare cleanup_workqueue_thread() in 2.6.20-mm1 and what is
    proposed in the patch :-

    2.6.20-mm1 (cwq->should_stop)

    static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq, int cpu)
    struct wq_barrier barr;
    int alive = 0;

    if (cwq->thread != NULL) {
    insert_wq_barrier(cwq, &barr, 1);
    cwq->should_stop = 1;
    alive = 1;

    if (alive) {

    while (unlikely(cwq->thread != NULL))
    * Wait until cwq->thread unlocks cwq->lock,
    * it won't touch *cwq after that.

    Patch (based on kthread_should_stop)

    static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct workqueue_struct *wq, int cpu)
    struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu);

    if (cwq->thread != NULL) {
    cwq->thread = NULL;

    The version using kthread_should_stop() is more simple IMO.

    > > I feel it is nice if the cleanup is synchronous i.e when cpu_down() is
    > > complete, all the dead cpu's worker threads would have terminated.
    > > Otherwise we expose races between CPU_UP_PREPARE/kthread_create and the
    > > (old) thread exiting.
    > Please look at 2.6.20-mm1, cleanup is synchronous. Probably we misunderstood
    > each other looking at different code.

    Ok ..I hadnt looked at 2.6.20-mm1 (it wasnt out when we posted the
    patch). Neverthless I think most of our intended changes would apply for
    2.6.20-mm1 also. We will post a new version (breaking down workqueue changes
    as you want) against 2.6.20-mm1.

    > > How abt retaining the break above but setting cwq->thread = NULL in
    > > create_workqueue_thread in failure case?
    > Perhaps do it, but why? The failure should be rare, and it is a bit
    > dangerous to have workqueue_struct which was not properly initialized.
    > Suppose we change CPU_UP_PREPARE so it is called before freeze_processes()
    > stage, then we have a problem.

    Ok problem. Will not add the 'break' there!

    > Srivatsa, don't get we wrong. I can't judge about using freezer for cpu hotplug,
    > but yes, we can improve workqueue.c in this case! But this changes should be
    > small and understandable. When cpu hotplug is converted, we don't need _any_
    > changes in workqueue.c, it should work (except s/CPU_DEAD/CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS
    > if you insist).

    Note with the change proposed in refrigerator, we can avoid
    CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS and do all cleanup in CPU_DEAD itself.

    > No more changes are required, cwq_should_stop() just works
    > because it is more flexible than kthread_should_stop().

    What is more flexible abt cwq_should_stop()?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-16 17:51    [W:0.047 / U:7.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site